plugin_enable

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations lack readOnly/destructive hints (both false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool activates a plugin, that enabling is a state change, and that timeout_seconds controls health wait with 0 meaning indefinite. It also implies the operation is non-destructive (does not remove or permanently alter, just changes state) and notes the return value is a boolean.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a clear first sentence stating the action, then additional detail on usage and parameters. It is compact, uses a bulleted Args list, and avoids fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema (bool), so the description covers usage context, parameter meaning, and return type. It lacks information about prerequisites like needing plugin installed (but that is implied by 'installed'), and it doesn't mention error cases, but these are minor given the simplicity and the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the schema properties). The description compensates fully by explaining name as 'the plugin name to enable' and timeout_seconds as 'Seconds to wait for the plugin to become healthy (0 = no timeout)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool activates an installed Docker plugin so Docker routes relevant API calls through it. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the disabled state and relation to plugin_disable, though it does not explicitly name all sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use it (on disabled plugins), mentions the sibling plugin_configure as a prerequisite if configuration exists, and names plugin_disable as the prior operation that disabled it. It also explains the timeout parameter's behavior, providing clear context for when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.